Sanctions: Who Would Be Hurt?

February 10, 1992

This is an odd time for the Hartford City Council to consider a ban on buying products from companies that do business in South Africa. That country is finally dismantling its system of racial segregation and moving toward full rights for all citizens.

With the city's government scraping for dollars, this is the worst time to pass a law that could restrict competition among the city's suppliers.

Several council members -- chiefly Sandra E. Little, Eugenio Caro Sr. and Louise B. Simmons -- are reviving a sanctions ordinance proposed more than a year ago but discouraged by the council's majority then. Last fall's elections altered the council's makeup, so the proponents are trying again and may well succeed. If they do, the ordinance ought not to hurt Hartford more than it would South Africa.

As first proposed, the sanctions would make it difficult if not impossible for the city to update and expand its computer operations. The ordinance recently was revised, with the definition of "doing business" with South Africa more narrowly, and sensibly, defined as direct investment in that country. Potential suppliers would remain eligible for Hartford's business if their products were sold there.

The ordinance also would allow the city's purchasing agent to ask the city manager to make exceptions if the sanctions were to result in "a substantial hardship" for the city or to prevent purchases at competitive prices. Good.

While South Africa has far to go in granting all of its citizens basic rights and opportunities, the country is making tremendous strides. The U. S. government has acknowledged that progress by ending its sanctions. Any that Hartford imposes at this late date should avoid harming the city